A look beneath the Holocaust Propaganda ...

[Lord Sidious]

Posted by Chicodoodoo (here)

Posted by Lord Sidious (here)
When did Germany have a false flag?

In my defense I have to say I don't watch television, and I read a variety of books, most dealing with uncovering the truth, whether in science, history, politics, or medicine.

Although many consider the Reichstag fire a “false-flag” event that greatly benefited the Nazi party, I will use the Gleiwitz incident as my example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleiwitz_incident

You can be sure that if Germany used one false-flag event, they used many, and we just don't know about them because they are so effective. That is certainly true in the case of the USA.

The German T4 program was used for a variety of purposes, including killing “undesirables”. The same thing happens here, only "terrorists" often disappear off to unknown destinations for “treatment”.

http://remember.org/witness/wit.vic.med.html

Yes, Germany's air and water were probably cleaner, and their press was surely freer than ours (ours is not at all free), but like I said, the USA is the modern Nazi Germany. Things have been taken to a whole new level here. For example, the deliberate infection of residents in Punta Gorda, FL was over 50 years ago and is a typical example among hundreds:

http://www.cidpusa.org/A/mycoplasma....orda,_Florida_

Besides using our own population for experimental purposes (Tuskegee syphilis experiment, water fluoridation, chemtrails, vaccines), our use of depleted uranium munitions overseas is an unquestionable crime against all humanity (actually, all life).

I made this comparison to show how the USA has “surpassed” the infamy of Nazi Germany. It's like comparing 9/11 to Gleiwitz. We are at least an order of magnitude worse than Nazi Germany ever was. And the Nazis responsible are much better now at hiding their crimes.

I would suggest to you that the US and the entire western world is more akin to communism that national socialism.
In fact, the entire west is now the Weimar Republic.

Posted by Chicodoodoo (here)

Posted by karelia (here)
It's hard to figure out what's truth and what's disinfo on this subject.

Using history to validate history is a slippery slope, to be sure. Germany has a history of invading other countries, whereas Poland does not. Of course, I'm basing that on history I've learned. In truth, I don't know more than what I've experienced, and I'm no different than anyone else. We have a much better chance of figuring out if 9/11 was a false-flag, since it happened in our lifetime, and more to gain from it as well. I am convinced 9/11 was a false-flag, and I am convinced that many "valuable" Nazis were quietly brought to the USA after World War II. And I strongly suspect that those Nazis (sociopaths) and their apprentices directly resulted in 9/11. So for me, the Gleiwitz piece fits the puzzle. It contributes to a picture of reality that I don't like at all, but I have to go with the best evidence I can accumulate. That the Holocaust could very well be exaggerated for propaganda purposes also fits that same awful puzzle. When Rahm Emanuel (a sociopath, IMO) announces on public television that they won't let a crisis go to waste, and Hillary (another sociopath) parrots the same philosophy, I can see fertile fields for harvesting false-flag events. And I think we reap what we sow.

Germany only existed since the First Reich in 1871.
France and Britain are far more feral than Germany ever has been, but they wrote the history.

And you are using the term nazi in a way that doesn't fit national socialists.
You do know that most of the people in Germany before and during the war weren't members of the NSDAP, don't you?

Posted by karelia (here)

Posted by Chicodoodoo (here)

Using history to validate history is a slippery slope, to be sure. Germany has a history of invading other countries, whereas Poland does not. Of course, I'm basing that on history I've learned. In truth, I don't know more than what I've experienced, and I'm no different than anyone else. We have a much better chance of figuring out if 9/11 was a false-flag, since it happened in our lifetime, and more to gain from it as well. I am convinced 9/11 was a false-flag, and I am convinced that many "valuable" Nazis were quietly brought to the USA after World War II. And I strongly suspect that those Nazis (sociopaths) and their apprentices directly resulted in 9/11. So for me, the Gleiwitz piece fits the puzzle. It contributes to a picture of reality that I don't like at all, but I have to go with the best evidence I can accumulate. That the Holocaust could very well be exaggerated for propaganda purposes also fits that same awful puzzle. When Rahm Emanuel (a sociopath, IMO) announces on public television that they won't let a crisis go to waste, and Hillary (another sociopath) parrots the same philosophy, I can see fertile fields for harvesting false-flag events. And I think we reap what we sow.

UK and US have invaded way more countries than Germany ever did...

Yes, I have no doubt that many Nazis were brought to the US. And I'm with you on the 9/11 connection! And on the sociopath bit, too.

I'm not sure, but I'm beginning to think that there were two camps amongst Nazis: some ended up in the US to further control (Wernherr von Braun, anyone?), others ended up in South America/Antarctica/hollow earth. Not sure I got the name right, Virgyl Armstrong(sp?), an ex-CIA member talked about some Nazis having escaped to the hollow of the earth and turned "good."

Many went to America due to Operation Paperclip, but the very best went to Argentina and ended up working in the region around Bariloche.
Neuschawabenland is a possibility, but I have seen nothing concrete.

Posted by RedeZra (here)

Posted by karelia (here)
I'm not sure, but I'm beginning to think that there were two camps amongst Nazis: some ended up in the US to further control (Wernherr von Braun, anyone?), others ended up in South America/Antarctica/hollow earth. Not sure I got the name right, Virgyl Armstrong(sp?), an ex-CIA member talked about some Nazis having escaped to the hollow of the earth and turned "good."

Apart from propaganda there is no reason to believe that German nationalists did not observe the rules and regulations set forth in the Geneva Convention

Sadly this can not be said about Stalin Soviet which didn't even sign it

If you care enough to check it out, the OKW, the Oberkommando der Wehrmacht, the high command of the armed forces, had a war crimes investigations unit directly attached to it.
This unit investigated both allied and German war crimes allegations including the SS and Waffen SS.

Posted by RedeZra (here)

Posted by Gypsy Woman (here)
He has since apologized and recanted, yes he did. Then disappeared.

Here is an article that was on the Jewish Defense League (JDL) website titled

David Cole: Monstrous Traitor
By Robert J. Newman

Don't you think it's time that we flush this rotten, sick individual down the toilet, where the rest of the waste lies?

One less David Cole in the world will certainly not end Jew-hatred, but it will have removed a dangerous parasitic, disease-ridden bacteria from infesting society...An evil monster like this does not deserve to live on this earth.

http://www.codoh.com/cole/traitor_amer.html


JDL is a Jewish nationalist organization whose stated goal is to "protect Jews from antisemitism by whatever means necessary"

Before Sep 11, the JDL was the most wanted domestic terrorist org on the FBI list.
Their onetime leader, Irv Rubin, was in jail for the firebombing of the IHR warehouse.
He died in jail and it is suspected that it was he that threatened David Cole.
It also looks like Rubin was assassinated in jail.

NOTE: For those people who may be confused why I post links sometimes and not others, is that I like people to look for themselves as they will see surrounding sites and info in their search rather than just get one link.
There is no wisdom in shallow fishing.

Posted by Gustav (here)
Interesting developments in the last two days. Thank you everyone for the contributions. I especially like the information about the Constitution vs. Basic Law in Germany. Very interesting. Also the mention of countries being corporation surfaced again. What I would like to ask is the following. It is often stated that the Act of 1871 or the Act to provide a Government for the District of Columbia turned the United States into a corporation. Now, I have been reading this document the last 15 minutes and I cannot seem to find it. This would not mean it is not true or not there, but I just cannot find it. Can someone point me to the correct sections of that act?

http://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/...215/#more-2215

Greetings,

Gustav

Check sec 41.
And let me check some of my info later, after I have a snooze and I will get back to you

[Flash]

Posted by Fred259 (here)

Posted by RedeZra (here)

Posted by karelia (here)
- Last, but not least, it appears that in 1990, a company by the name of German Federal Republic - Financial Agents was incorporated, its sole decision maker being the GFR. Looks like it's become a corporation...

Perhaps the Crown in the City of London turns countries into corporations

No Perhaps Redezra… it does ! so yes you are right

Canada
Australia
Some say America,
And many others.

Maybe you are aware that the military in these nations still have involvement with the crown.

RAF Royal Air Force (UK)
RAAF Royal Australian Air Force
RCAF Royal Canadian Air Force.

Its also the same with the navy.


You talk about the City of London, do you perhaps mean “ the Corporation of London” which is in the City of London financial district.

Just here kind of a way to show you how embedded in us those "crown" involvment are, I was talking to an American businessman about different companies in Canada, there were other listeners to the discussion and I said with a sure automatism "Oh! I think this company X is a Crown corporation" just to see in their face something wrong and then one listener asked me "what a crown on your teeth has to do with a corporation?" I just laugh about the misunderstanding and explain the ways the Crown of England had been involved in Canada and that we still call companies owned by the government "Crown corporations" - but some are, some are not.

However, I realised then a tiny bit of my own programming.

[Gustav]

Hmm, I still am more convinced that it says the corporations of Georgetown and Washington are succeeded by the corporation of Columbia District than anything else. I fail to see the grand conspiracy that this establishes the corporation of the united states and would make it superior to the Constitution/would alter the constitution. But perhaps I am not reading between the lines.

More on topic. National Socialism and Communism are of the same kind as you all might know. Perhaps little more known is the fact that Communism is also referred to as International Socialism. As long as any government is proposing, covert or not, socialism in the european sense in its own respective country instead of worldwide it can be quite easily argued that most governments are to a certain level national-socialists. Simply based on the fact that they do not propagate those same socialistic measures to be taken in other countries. This particularly applies to the United States. In Europe however, there indeed can be spoken of a international socialistic movement based on the fact that every government support the basic socialistic, redistributional and collective ideas of the various 'Internationale' meetings held from the 1840s/1850s onward.

Now, where in terminology often the people are led astray is with the term Fascism. Fascism is also a collective collective society, focusses on the merger of business and state as a means of growing production. However, there is a reluctance in fascism to collectivism. Therefore, financial means are left with the general populace to provide a bigger sense of individuality. In itself this system thus incorporates a better, if you will, garantuee for the individual than is the case under outright collectivistic systems.
Following this line its means that you can be a nazi and a fascist at the same time, but being the first does not include also being the other.

Why is this relevant to the topic? Because usually nazi's and fascists are seen as the same. But they are not. They have a different mindset. Fascists did not murder systematically jews, gypsies, gays etc. However, they were very fond of locking up political adverseries. As an example, listen to Erick Ritter (Knight) von Kuehnelt-Leddihn.
Not about the locking up, but about the stance of fascist italy during the route to WWII towards National Socialist Germany. A very interesting man, altough his merits are not in the field discussed in this topic. Listen what he has to say from 32:14 to 33:15. Het is talking about the backgrounds of Ludwig von Mises an this in light of the accusations that Mises would be a supporter of fascism. But rather he was anti-democratic. Anyway, it is a recommendation to listen the whole lecture/speech

http://mises.org/media/1328/The-Mise...olitical-State
or direct link:
http://media.mises.org/mp3/Kuehnelt-Leddihn.mp3

[Chicodoodoo]

Posted by Lord Sidious (here)
And you are using the term nazi in a way that doesn't fit national socialists.

You are correct. Labels and how we understand them is a huge problem in communications. This is a critical key to understanding the success of propaganda techniques. I won't try to define "national socialists" because that term is so steeped in propaganda that it has no meaning to me (much like the terms "Democrat" and "Republican" nowadays). However, I will give you my definition of "Nazi". A Nazi is a fascist (oops, another label everyone defines differently) whose actions are directed at controlling and manipulating a large majority for the benefit of a small minority and to the detriment of those being manipulated. Nazis are essentially sociopaths, just like fascists are essentially sociopaths. Hitler and his minions were Nazis. Mussolini and his minions were Fascists. Roosevelt and his minions were "New Dealers". All were sociopaths working against the common good while justifying their actions as being necessary for the common good. We (all humanity) are the common good, and they hurt us.

The critical point in all this (including the main subject of this thread) is that we are being fooled. It's pervasive, it's ancient, it's unrelenting, and it's crippling. Humanity is being suppressed. What interests me is why. We must be extremely important in some way to merit this kind of attention. It is the search for truth that drives me. What is the truth here?

[RedeZra]

Posted by Chicodoodoo (here)
A Nazi is a fascist (oops, another label everyone defines differently) whose actions are directed at controlling and manipulating a large majority for the benefit of a small minority and to the detriment of those being manipulated. Nazis are essentially sociopaths, just like fascists are essentially sociopaths. Hitler and his minions were Nazis.

the term Nazi is so stained with the PTB's propaganda that today it's almost synonym with 'evil'


Nazi is an abbreviation of Nationalsozialist which again is an abbreviation of the governing party of Hitler Germany between 1933 and 1945 - Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP)


Hitler and the Nationalsozialists dared to defy the PTB and sought reparations from the unfair 'Treaty of Versailles' where Germany was forced to accept sole responsibility for WWI and consequently bleed billions of Marks to France Britain and Russia leaving the German people destitute

Germany was also forced to cede West Prussia to Poland leaving East Prussia as an exclave separated from mainland Germany


When Hitler invaded Western part of Poland it was to connect East Prussia and it's German population with Germany - and so Britain and France declared war on Germany

[Lord Sidious]

Posted by Gustav (here)
Hmm, I still am more convinced that it says the corporations of Georgetown and Washington are succeeded by the corporation of Columbia District than anything else. I fail to see the grand conspiracy that this establishes the corporation of the united states and would make it superior to the Constitution/would alter the constitution. But perhaps I am not reading between the lines.

Because it was in later acts that DC became the US. That isn't the topic of this thread. If you want, start another one on that topic.

Posted by Gustav (here)
More on topic. National Socialism and Communism are of the same kind as you all might know.

Then you would know wrong. Other than some things in common such as the socialism name and being one party states, there isn't much in common.

Posted by Gustav (here)
Perhaps little more known is the fact that Communism is also referred to as International Socialism.

And it is said to be an interim phase to communism.

Posted by Gustav (here)
As long as any government is proposing, covert or not, socialism in the european sense in its own respective country instead of worldwide it can be quite easily argued that most governments are to a certain level national-socialists.

That would be a huge misunderstanding of the basis of national socialism and you would be comparing on name alone.

Posted by Gustav (here)
Simply based on the fact that they do not propagate those same socialistic measures to be taken in other countries. This particularly applies to the United States. In Europe however, there indeed can be spoken of a international socialistic movement based on the fact that every government support the basic socialistic, redistributional and collective ideas of the various 'Internationale' meetings held from the 1840s/1850s onward.

Now, where in terminology often the people are led astray is with the term Fascism. Fascism is also a collective collective society, focusses on the merger of business and state as a means of growing production. However, there is a reluctance in fascism to collectivism. Therefore, financial means are left with the general populace to provide a bigger sense of individuality. In itself this system thus incorporates a better, if you will, garantuee for the individual than is the case under outright collectivistic systems.
Following this line its means that you can be a nazi and a fascist at the same time, but being the first does not include also being the other.

No, you can't be a national socialist and a fascist. They are both very different economic models that are different in key areas.

Posted by Gustav (here)
Why is this relevant to the topic? Because usually nazi's and fascists are seen as the same. But they are not.

That is what people are conditioned to say, but how many people could tell you the difference in the two systems?

Posted by Gustav (here)
They have a different mindset. Fascists did not murder systematically jews, gypsies, gays etc.

And neither did the national sociailists.

Posted by Gustav (here)
However, they were very fond of locking up political adverseries. As an example, listen to Erick Ritter (Knight) von Kuehnelt-Leddihn.
Not about the locking up, but about the stance of fascist italy during the route to WWII towards National Socialist Germany. A very interesting man, altough his merits are not in the field discussed in this topic. Listen what he has to say from 32:14 to 33:15. Het is talking about the backgrounds of Ludwig von Mises an this in light of the accusations that Mises would be a supporter of fascism. But rather he was anti-democratic. Anyway, it is a recommendation to listen the whole lecture/speech

http://mises.org/media/1328/The-Mise...olitical-State
or direct link:
http://media.mises.org/mp3/Kuehnelt-Leddihn.mp3

Because you are in Holland, you may have the chance to speak to people who were national socialists when ww2 was on. I don't know how you would find them, but if you could, they would tell you things you won't find in the systems textbooks.

Posted by Chicodoodoo (here)

Posted by Lord Sidious (here)
And you are using the term nazi in a way that doesn't fit national socialists.

You are correct. Labels and how we understand them is a huge problem in communications.

I can agree with this. Part of the programming instilled in us is to see things as an us v them type paradigm, much like your post here.

Posted by Chicodoodoo (here)
This is a critical key to understanding the success of propaganda techniques. I won't try to define "national socialists" because that term is so steeped in propaganda that it has no meaning to me (much like the terms "Democrat" and "Republican" nowadays).

That is a very good observation.

Posted by Chicodoodoo (here)
However, I will give you my definition of "Nazi". A Nazi is a fascist (oops, another label everyone defines differently)

That is like saying coke is pepsi. Yes, they are both cola soda drinks, but they are not the same and to equate them in that manner would not only be wrong, it would betray a lack of understanding on behalf of the author.

Posted by Chicodoodoo (here)
whose actions are directed at controlling and manipulating a large majority for the benefit of a small minority and to the detriment of those being manipulated.

How do you figure that on the part of the 3rd Reich? You are thinking of the camps and what happened during the war?

Posted by Chicodoodoo (here)
Nazis are essentially sociopaths, just like fascists are essentially sociopaths.

Again, how do you figure this? It would be related to the above question, obviously.

Posted by Chicodoodoo (here)
Hitler and his minions were Nazis.

Mmm, minions. Ok, the programming is strong in this one. And no, they weren't nazis as you say.

Posted by Chicodoodoo (here)
Mussolini and his minions were Fascists. Roosevelt and his minions were "New Dealers".

Probably correct on both counts. I know Mussolinis followers called themselves fascists and still do.

Posted by Chicodoodoo (here)
All were sociopaths working against the common good while justifying their actions as being necessary for the common good. We (all humanity) are the common good, and they hurt us.

How does this claim fit the 3rd Reich?

Posted by Chicodoodoo (here)
The critical point in all this (including the main subject of this thread) is that we are being fooled. It's pervasive, it's ancient, it's unrelenting, and it's crippling. Humanity is being suppressed. What interests me is why. We must be extremely important in some way to merit this kind of attention. It is the search for truth that drives me. What is the truth here?

This I overwhelmingly agree with.

[karelia]

So, I spent the better part of a day digging up info on the mess that is the GFR. Then I spent another unearthing info that disproves the "commonly known" propaganda about the war itself. Today I tried to find some info about AH that isn't either propaganda or worship, and I stalled. As in absolutely stalled. I was unable to find anything that might even remotely sound like a record of someone who knew him, who might sound like a credible source.

[Lord Sidious]

Posted by karelia (here)
So, I spent the better part of a day digging up info on the mess that is the GFR. Then I spent another unearthing info that disproves the "commonly known" propaganda about the war itself. Today I tried to find some info about AH that isn't either propaganda or worship, and I stalled. As in absolutely stalled. I was unable to find anything that might even remotely sound like a record of someone who knew him, who might sound like a credible source.

I doubt that you will find a single item that is neutral that covers the period of 1923 onwards.

[karelia]

Posted by Lord Sidious (here)

I doubt that you will find a single item that is neutral that covers the period of 1923 onwards.

So how do we find actual information?

[Lord Sidious]

Posted by karelia (here)

Posted by Lord Sidious (here)

I doubt that you will find a single item that is neutral that covers the period of 1923 onwards.

So how do we find actual information?

You have to research the info and then based on the surrounding info, decide for yourself whether what you see is real, not real, or partially real.

If you can find a book called ''Into the Darkness'' that isn't a bad read, but it is written about events in 1940.

[Gustav]

- On the differences between fascist italy and national-socialist germany
In my view very little because they are taught there are no diffrences. One major difference to start with would be the approach to individuals. In nazi-germany there was a tendency to centralize the approach to the fixing of the economy top-down. With the stringent monetary policy the nsdap imposed germany recovered much faster from the great depression than for instance the US, which was doing exactly the same thing as it is doing now. In fascist Italy the way to fix the economy was down-top. Policy in fascist Italy also left social structures largely untouched, whereas in germany they were more used for the spreading of the new ideology. Also the militarization of germany after 1934 is much larger than in Italy despite the Italian wars and atrocities in Africa during the 20s/30s.
But yes, you are right that both Hitler and Mussolini are both hard leftist socialist in a sense. Point taken that that would ideologically diminish the distance that could exist between the two countries.

Quote Originally Posted by Gustav View Post
They have a different mindset. Fascists did not murder systematically jews, gypsies, gays etc.
And neither did the national sociailists.

I am not trying to imply that by saying this automatically means the national socialists did

- About the common territory of Socialism and Communism.
Than I would know right (i hope). Altough it is only one source and thus not completely to be trusted, in the book 'Fire in the minds of men' (google it, rather interesting), an interesting case is made. During the various 'Internationale' meetings that are held from the 1840s onwards the theories of revolution for classes in the different countries are discussed many times. There were several large european movements, secretive and in the open that wanted revolutions. Whether it be to abolish existing society or just for social causes. I believe that after the Paris Commune in 1871 (basically a Communist uprising) or shortly before a split in the parties involved in the 'Internationale'-meetings occured. They were all fervent supporters of Socialism. Since many of them had seen revolutions surpressed or defeated on a European level a large group started to abandon the ideas of International Socialism and become convinced that National Socialism would be better, because it would be more efficient to tailor the needs of the workers in the different countries. The International Socialists and Communists are insofar the same that the difference is only the name and the way it is being portrayed. And remember, this is all still way before WWI. Many of the International Socialists became Communists by choice because they were convinced that the great redistribution of goods, services and wealth (basically socialism, but on steroids) combined with the International approach would still be working better than on a national level. The origins of the NSDAP, before infiltrated by Hitler and the whole spectrum, are to be found in that conviction is my opinion.

- About the one party states
Hitler has mentioned many times he would not bother with eliminating the parliament. On several occaisions he stated that he would not even mind several parties in the Reichstag. Why? Because it appears that he has had the same mindset as many democratic minded governments. As long as you manage to let one generation grow up in your system than it is ok. Because, they will not know any other system and will therefore protect it. Hitler did than not care if they wanted to exterminate jews or not, if they wanted to deport people at all, wanted to build roads or not. Wanted social security or not. Because everybody would function within the national-socialist ideology. As is everybody functioning in the democratic ideology now. This is different from communism where the state is to be the party at all times. At least, that is how it has played out until today.

- On comparing most socialist governments to national-socialists
On the basis of my knowledge on the subject, again most governments are national socialists. I should have specified. I mean them to be the national socialists in the sense of trying to accomplish a socialist state in their respective countries instead of internationally. Although it can be argued that with the becoming of the european state and the growing administrative and spacial repression there is a move in the direction the word national socialist refers to nowadays.

But that is enough of this I would say. Not that I do not want to discuss it any further, but it is leading me too far off topic. So, anyone still interested in the textual discussion of political systems just before the French Revolution up to 1945 can contact me . Sorry for the long post. I sometimes tend to drag a lot of info into it while trying to paint the picture. I hope it worked

Greetings

[Gustav]

Posted by karelia (here)

Posted by Lord Sidious (here)

I doubt that you will find a single item that is neutral that covers the period of 1923 onwards.

So how do we find actual information?

Maybe a bit too intensice, but you could go through actual text, if you can find them, from that period. Not what was in the papers, but the remarks of politicians and public persons can give away a lot of information. Hope this helps.

[Lord Sidious]

Posted by Gustav (here)
- On the differences between fascist italy and national-socialist germany
In my view very little because they are taught there are no diffrences.

Who is they?

Posted by Gustav (here)
One major difference to start with would be the approach to individuals. In nazi-germany there was a tendency to centralize the approach to the fixing of the economy top-down. With the stringent monetary policy the nsdap imposed germany recovered much faster from the great depression than for instance the US, which was doing exactly the same thing as it is doing now. In fascist Italy the way to fix the economy was down-top. Policy in fascist Italy also left social structures largely untouched, whereas in germany they were more used for the spreading of the new ideology. Also the militarization of germany after 1934 is much larger than in Italy despite the Italian wars and atrocities in Africa during the 20s/30s.

That may be one major difference, but you only briefly touch anything real in this post here.

Posted by Gustav (here)
But yes, you are right that both Hitler and Mussolini are both hard leftist socialist in a sense. Point taken that that would ideologically diminish the distance that could exist between the two countries.

The NSDAP had a lot of leftist policies, but they had right wing too. When asked where did they appear on the left - right scale, Hitler said nowhere, they used policies that had merit, regardless of the left - right paradigm.

Posted by Gustav (here)
- About the common territory of Socialism and Communism.
Than I would know right (i hope). Altough it is only one source and thus not completely to be trusted, in the book 'Fire in the minds of men' (google it, rather interesting), an interesting case is made. During the various 'Internationale' meetings that are held from the 1840s onwards the theories of revolution for classes in the different countries are discussed many times. There were several large european movements, secretive and in the open that wanted revolutions. Whether it be to abolish existing society or just for social causes. I believe that after the Paris Commune in 1871 (basically a Communist uprising)

The Paris Commune was the second communist uprising in France, the first being in 1848.

Posted by Gustav (here)
or shortly before a split in the parties involved in the 'Internationale'-meetings occured. They were all fervent supporters of Socialism. Since many of them had seen revolutions surpressed or defeated on a European level a large group started to abandon the ideas of International Socialism and become convinced that National Socialism would be better, because it would be more efficient to tailor the needs of the workers in the different countries. The International Socialists and Communists are insofar the same that the difference is only the name and the way it is being portrayed. And remember, this is all still way before WWI. Many of the International Socialists became Communists by choice because they were convinced that the great redistribution of goods, services and wealth (basically socialism, but on steroids) combined with the International approach would still be working better than on a national level. The origins of the NSDAP, before infiltrated by Hitler and the whole spectrum, are to be found in that conviction is my opinion.

You don't know the origins of the NSDAP if that is what you believe.

Posted by Gustav (here)
- About the one party states
Hitler has mentioned many times he would not bother with eliminating the parliament. On several occaisions he stated that he would not even mind several parties in the Reichstag.

Do you have a source for this?

Posted by Gustav (here)
Why? Because it appears that he has had the same mindset as many democratic minded governments. As long as you manage to let one generation grow up in your system than it is ok. Because, they will not know any other system and will therefore protect it. Hitler did than not care if they wanted to exterminate jews or not,

And this?

Posted by Gustav (here)
if they wanted to deport people at all, wanted to build roads or not. Wanted social security or not.

And this?

Posted by Gustav (here)
Because everybody would function within the national-socialist ideology. As is everybody functioning in the democratic ideology now. This is different from communism where the state is to be the party at all times. At least, that is how it has played out until today.

Here is one point that you might have been able to make, so let me finish it for you. In communist states, the state and party are one. In the 3rd Reich, they were not. If you want to see how to determine this, in one example, the eagle emblem used. If the organisation is of the state, the head faces one way, if it is a party org, then it faces the other way.
Some things started out as part of the party and were handed to the Reich, some things were retained, such as the SS.

Posted by Gustav (here)
- On comparing most socialist governments to national-socialists
On the basis of my knowledge on the subject, again most governments are national socialists. I should have specified. I mean them to be the national socialists in the sense of trying to accomplish a socialist state in their respective countries instead of internationally. Although it can be argued that with the becoming of the european state and the growing administrative and spacial repression there is a move in the direction the word national socialist refers to nowadays.

I think you are getting hungup on the title or name of the ideology. There is more to it than that. I would suggest you read up more and see what that is.

Posted by Gustav (here)
But that is enough of this I would say. Not that I do not want to discuss it any further, but it is leading me too far off topic. So, anyone still interested in the textual discussion of political systems just before the French Revolution up to 1945 can contact me . Sorry for the long post. I sometimes tend to drag a lot of info into it while trying to paint the picture. I hope it worked

Greetings

[Chicodoodoo]

Posted by Lord Sidious (here)
How do you figure that on the part of the 3rd Reich?

I have moved beyond being tied to the 3rd Reich with my use of the term "Nazi". The Israeli government acts like a bunch of Nazis. The American government acts like a bunch of Nazis. So essentially I now use the term "Nazi" and "sociopath" interchangeably. Why? Because almost no one knows what I'm talking about when I say "sociopath", but most people get it if I say "Nazi". I realize you're being a stickler for terminology here, while my primary goal is to facilitate the exchange of ideas. Usually it works, but not always, despite my best efforts.

[modwiz]

Posted by karelia (here)
So, I spent the better part of a day digging up info on the mess that is the GFR. Then I spent another unearthing info that disproves the "commonly known" propaganda about the war itself. Today I tried to find some info about AH that isn't either propaganda or worship, and I stalled. As in absolutely stalled. I was unable to find anything that might even remotely sound like a record of someone who knew him, who might sound like a credible source.

Have you ever read Mein Kampf?

[Lord Sidious]

Posted by Chicodoodoo (here)

Posted by Lord Sidious (here)
How do you figure that on the part of the 3rd Reich?

I have moved beyond being tied to the 3rd Reich with my use of the term "Nazi". The Israeli government acts like a bunch of Nazis. The American government acts like a bunch of Nazis. So essentially I now use the term "Nazi" and "sociopath" interchangeably. Why? Because almost no one knows what I'm talking about when I say "sociopath", but most people get it if I say "Nazi". I realize you're being a stickler for terminology here, while my primary goal is to facilitate the exchange of ideas. Usually it works, but not always, despite my best efforts.

Ok, got ya.
It's just that if we use the same word differently in the one thread it can be confusing.

[Riggaz]

Posted by Teakai (here)
I’ve been reading about the holocaust and how there are those who believe that the story we’ve been told about it is a great deal of public relations propaganda in order to influence the minds of people to think a particular way.

Now, I’m not for a minute saying that utterly terrible things which ought never to have happened, happened during WWll.
And are still happening today to other people in other countries – but for some reason that pales in significance in people’s minds in comparison to that of ‘the holocaust’.

However, looking beyond the human tragedy of it, the question arises: - was it all an essential part of the greater plan to drive the new world order agenda full steam ahead?

The Rothschilds (‘ptb’ being Zionists and apparently Jews (handy that) and god knows what else ) funded both sides of this war, they were responsible for the start of the UN.
Great Britian wanted US support during WWll, so a deal was done that Great Britian would hand over a chunk of Palestine (now considerably grown and increasingly growing ) if the US could be inspired to join – bring on p*ssing off the Japanese and thereby instigating the attack on Pearl Harbour.

All these moves, and many more, have been chess piece moves taking place under the cover of using human pawns in order to strategically place the pieces to bring about the globalist ‘nwo’ agenda.

It is illegal in certain countries to be a holocaust denier, and even people in countries where it isn’t have been so brainwashed by the propaganda they are unable to discuss the situation with an open mind and an opinion not shrouded by emotion.
Which is an absolute shame, for while it remains an un-investigated and unquestioned event the Jewish people will remain sacrificial lambs to the Zionist movement to attain total control over the world and humanity.

And, while we allow the cockroaches to remain hiding under the cover of Holocaust guilt and censorship they will continue doing whatever it is they are doing to make the world a place that none of us want to live in.

Have at it.

I think it was in the first world war that the deal was done, ref the balfour treaty

the second world war was most probably about collecting on that deal

[karelia]

Posted by modwiz (here)

Have you ever read Mein Kampf?

I haven't, no. When I had the opportunity some years ago, I wasn't ready. Then I lived in Germany where the book is verboten. I suppose I should be able to find it online. Thanks for that, modwiz!

[loveandgratitude]

Mein Kamph was written when hitler was in jail. He called it "eductional time out". The interesting thing about this book is that it is dedicated to his teacher - occultist Dietrich Eckart the original member of NSP. On his deathbed Dietrich Eckart stated "I called the tunes, any tune I called Hitler would dance". We need to look at Dietrich Eckart. I have a lot of material about him which I will post when I have time. So much to say, so little time.

[Gustav]

'It is good to sip, it is great to drink, but it is unwise to empty the cup at once'.

Hello, I have been out for a week or more. I had an overload. I spent 6/7 hours on average a day reading new material and watching new videos since I had been accepted as a member to this forum. I have not been able to cope with all of it, but that is ok. I have heard, read and seen things that crumbled my foundations and now know not exactly where to go next. It is not negative, that I know for sure.
I felt I owed you all an explanation for disappearing when at first I was getting rather active in this thread. But as for this thread, I will provide sources for what I have stated. I have it in books and other docs, so I have to look that up first.